McCaskill is a no on Gorsuch.

[hrmjustin]

Link to tweet

[FSogol]

1. Wasnt she being crucified on DU yesterday?

[JenniferJuniper]

3. Yes. Perhaps it helped?

[hrmjustin]

6. Yes and there have been threats of a primary.

I think she really believed she would be primaries because she primaries a sitting Governor once.

[Demsrule86]

41. A primary...do you think a Republican won't take her seat most likely?

Except the fact that she needs to sometimes vote with the pugs to keep her seat...this isn't one of those times.

[mopinko]

2. she better.

i know there are some dems who feel at risk in '18, but there is a lot more of this to play out and '18 could find us on a whole different planet.

any wavering dems better realize that this is about which side of history they want to be on.

[PoliticAverse]

4. If McCaskill is going to support the filibuster it appears Schumer does in fact have the 41

necessary.

[caroldansen]

5. With or without a filibuster the republicans have the majority right now and you know he's gettin'in

whether we like it or not so why not start working on him to making him into a democrat and seeing that not only is our way better but he will be more popular.

[BannonsLiver]

7. Because he's a far right idealogue who can't be moved in any way?

That's just for starters.

[red dog 1]

24. + 1

[LeftInTX]

9. Judges aren't easily persuaded to change their basic viewpoints

Gorsuch has probably handed down hundreds of decisions based on his mindset.

My only concern if not Gorsuch, Trump could throw in someone worse like Guiliani

[Moostache]

39. NO.

Hold hearings for Garland or go nuclear, but either way, the GOP is going to OWN their partisan hackery and the fact that THEY blew up the non-partisan nature of the SCOTUS. Go-along, get-along Democrats can git as far as I am concerned...nice time is over.

Look at the healthcare bill for a good example of WHY it is a better strategy to force the GOP's hand...they are like herding cats when it comes down to actually DOING something...they are AWESOME at holding the party line when they are in opposition (something the Dems NEVER seem to remember), but as a governing body? Forget it, they are hopeless!!!

DARE them to go nuclear, force them to split their caucus further. Do not make ANYTHING easy for them in the error or Trump!

[Demsrule86]

42. We will not cooperate with the orange liar except for a very very good reason...and he and the

heartless bastards in the Republican Party won't provide one...he is not a Democrat even if he used to call himself one.

[Bettie]

43. Precisely how does one

move a right wing ideologue to see "our" side?

This is a guy who thought that a truck driver should have frozen to death rather than leave a load behind to go to safety.

This is a guy who will ALWAYS vote for corporations over human beings.

He's not going to move any direction but farther to the Right. He'll make Thomas look like a bleeding heart liberal.

[mr_liberal]

8. Its a mistake

Filibuster will be easily nuked and then Trump will only need 51 votes to replace Ginsburg. The filibuster would probably work for Ginsburg especially if there was a deal.

I understand it though. McCaskill has the far left goin nutty, they cant be reasoned with.

[JCanete]

12. um, and tell me why they wouldn't just do it when it came time to replace Ginsburg?

what are we preserving here?

[mr_liberal]

14. The filibuster

so it can be used for Ginsburg (or Kennedy) when it would change the balance of the court and moderate Republicans have promised in a deal not to nuke it.

This is just swapping a conservative (Gorsuch) for a conservative (Scalia).

[JCanete]

17. but if you dont' use the filibuster it won't be there, and if you use it, you say they are going to

take it away, so what is the difference?

Are you saying that if we filibuster Gorsuch, they can't remove the filibuster and then place Gorsuch? If that's the case its procedural stuff I'm unaware of and I'll have to think about it. Otherwise, using it later only to have it stripped from us kind of makes us look silly for holding onto it, and frankly, makes me wonder whether it will be used the next time anyway.

[mr_liberal]

23. There'd be a deal

There'd be a press conference between 8 Democrat senators (Coons, Manchin, Feinsten...) and several moderate Republican senators (McCain, Collins, Murkowski...)

the Democrats would agree to confirm Gorsuch and the Republicans would agree to not nuke the filibuster for any further Trump nominees.

Its a deal between moderates to preserve the filibuster and not allow either party to stack the court with extremists. Thats the way its supposed to work.

[JCanete]

25. given the history, why would we trust that deal? We give up front, they give nothing nt

[mr_liberal]

30. Theyd be on video in a press conference making a promise

If they went back on it they be liars and it would damage their careers. They'd keep their word.

[Proud liberal 80]

34. They are going to nuke the filibuster

For either Gorsuch or Ginsburg's replacement. Might as well let them nuke it now.

They don't care if they were on video saying they wouldn't. Haven't you followed politics ove that last 25 years?

[JCanete]

35. is that your experience with republicans giving their word? Does anything ever stick?

Okay, but I do see where you are coming from, I just don't actually think this will work. At least I'm less confused than I was about this position.

[Bettie]

47. They never, ever follow through on their deals

Never.

They can not be trusted.

What's the point of even mentioning the "nuclear option" when Dems already use it on themselves?

There are no actual Republican moderates anymore. They will do as they are told, with a few "defections" allowed on this vote or that vote to give an illusion of free will.

[Yavin4]

22. These fuckers never play fair. Ever.

They're going to ram their agenda through no matter what. They're ruthless, and they won't even allow the Constitution to stop them let alone some fucking custom.

[JCanete]

26. absolutely, why should we just let them do it without at least registering our opposition. nt

[mr_liberal]

32. Its what they want though.

Conservatives want Democrats to filibuster so they can nuke it and then Trump would only need 51 votes to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy.

[JCanete]

33. Again, when they do it then, why will it matter that we held onto it now. You didn't convince me

they wouldn't.

[klook]

38. Alternative: roll over and play dead.

No thanks.

[lostnfound]

40. Ginsburg is still healthy and strong..life expectancy is 99...75% chance of living to 92.

Don't write her off like that. I just did an online calculator, and a college-educated still working woman of her age, height and weight, marital status and workout habits has a life expectancy of 99.
Unless somebody know something we don't.
We should all be grateful she takes such good care of herself.

[Demsrule86]

44. And we would be in the same boat with any appointment.

There is no reason to wait; we can't stop them, but we can fight then and give nor quarter...many of us were practically hysterical about the court because we knew...the idea the Trump would somehow start a revolution or Hillary was worsewas a pernicious like spread about by Russians it seems ...well we lost and this is going to leave a mark.

[ananda]

10. Now, if we can just put the pressure on any other Dem..

to filibuster.

Patrick Leahy? You better come around!

[red dog 1]

27. How about Dianne Feinstein?

She sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein can help stop Gorsuch"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/104016359

(I also hope Leahy is for a filibuster of Gorsuch)

[Demsrule86]

45. He has 41 votes according to what I have read.

I don't want to make this a big deal...although I hope the Dems filibuster. But I won't beat up Dems if they don't. Gorsuch is getting in. I want a fight to deny Trump and easy victory...that is the truth.

[still_one]

11. That is a big one. Bravo Senator

[still_one]

13. The Democrats should not allow any SC justice nominee to go through until the Russian connections

Last edited Fri Mar 31, 2017, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

are known. Unlike McConnell reason that Obama didn't have a right to appoint a SC justice in his last term, this one actiually has merit. If Russia interfered in our election, trump is not legitimate, and we should wait until 2020 that choose the next SC justice in that case

No doubt they will use the nuclear option, but they will rue the day they do that, and the same for denying President Obama his right

F**k them

[red dog 1]

28. + 1

[DonCoquixote]

15. if the heat we put on her worked

so be it.. Not like Joe Manchin will.

[dalton99a]

16. Good for her.

[SunSeeker]

18. K & R

[Jamaal510]

19. K&R

[Buns_of_Fire]

20. I must say I'm surprised. I thought she'd line up with the anti-filibuster folks,

especially since she's up for re-election in a red state. But I'm happy to be wrong in this case.

[Demsrule86]

46. We need to send money even if we don't live in her state to help her keep her seat...they

will be out with big money for the Dems to try to get 60 votes...We need to not just hold the Senate but take the majority back...you want to stop Trump's nominees...it is the only way.

[OliverQ]

21. McConnell will use the Nuclear Option

So Gorsuch is definitely getting in.

[LisaM]

29. Perhaps she heard from the two colleagues Gorsuch refused to meet....

Tammy Duckworth and Catherine Cortez Masto.

In fact, I hope she either did hear from them, or let that factor into her decision.

[red dog 1]

31. "Key Dem McCaskill to oppose Gorsuch, back filibuster" (The Hill)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028878370

[DFW]

36. This is PROBABLY a coincidence, but

I sent her a long note yesterday about why I had supported her in the past, and hoped to in the future, remembered celebrating with her after she invited me to her swearing in party on Jan. 3, 2013 (I got carted out on a wheelchair to the Senate infirmary, but that is another story: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251271622 ). I laid out in no uncertain terms how I appreciated that I thought she had the courage and determination to oppose Gorsuch, and that I would do everything I could to muster support for her next year if she stood with us on this nomination. I didn't get a direct answer yet, but this will do just fine!

[Cha]

48. Every bit helps.. Mahalo for doing that, DFW!

I didn't "crucify" her.. I just said..

Star Member Cha (195,615 posts)

84. Remember Garland, Claire.. and just how popular is

trump now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1743411

[jalan48]

37. Great to hear! Glad to see Ms. McCaskill voting with the majority.